As you can see, China already has 2,363 coal based plants and expects to have 1,171more. It comes as no surprise that China and India are major users of coal based power currently and they will be the major builders in the future. No other country is even close. It is illustrative to see that European nations are forecast to be increasing coal based capacity, not reducing it as their none too subtle “holier than thou” attitude would suggest.

It is likely that a great many people in the US have been led to believe that solar and wind play significant roles in supplying domestic energy. Further and even more incredibly they are led to believe that solar and wind will replace fossil fuels in the not too distant future. The Paris agreement demands that no fossil fuels be used after 2050

I am too old to make it to 2050, so I will not be around to see if no fossil fuels are being used at that time. If you make it to 2050, I will bet that fossil fuel will still be used.

The Energy Information Administration’s(EIA)**, chart on the primary energy sources for the year 2015 is shown below.

Petroleum, natural gas, coal, renewable energy, and nuclear electric power are primary sources of energy. Electricity is a secondary energy source that is generated from primary sources of energy.

Note that renewable energy is only 10% of total energy produced in the US. And of that 10%, solar is 6% and wind is 19%. Putting the solar and wind as a percent of the total energy consumed in the US has solar at 0.6% and wind at 1.9%. So, in 2015 only 2.5% of the US energy came from those two sources. Is this compatible with what you are learning from the media? And those two are the ones that the greenies are banking on to replace coal, natural gas and petroleum. And though it is counterintuitive, the warmers want to shut down the nuclear plants as well.

The previous posting, examined the study “A roadmap for rapid decarbonization” published in the Science magazine, and discussed the major obstacles the warmers face in their attempt to persuade the politicians and the voters to undertake decarbonization. And do it rapidly. You may not think thirty years is rapid, but convincing 8 billion people to wipe out the present infrastructure and substitute a new one using as yet unproven methods in 30 years, is moving at a breathtaking speed.

The above noted study, is not the only one that has looked at a way to satisfy the Paris Agreement of holding the global temperature to max.2 ºC rise, with a goal of 1.5ºC rise. A study by 100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water and Sunlight (WWS) led by Jacobson, Delucci , et at. is, on the surface (number of pages of detailed discussion), more elaborate than the previous posting. This WWS roadmap calls for an 80% reduction of fossil fuels by 2030! Only 13 years away.

The WWS study is an all-sector roadmap that is said to show how 139 nations could jointly hold the temperature rise to no more than 2ºC.

Friends of Science critique the WWS study with a response titled “WHY RENEWABLE ENERGY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS BY 2050” . Michael Kelly, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Cambridge says: “Humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality”.

That’s what guides this critique. The critique illustrates the enormous number of new renewable facilities needed, the time necessary to put these facilities in to operation and the amount of space they require. It is awesome.

I have promised some critical views from skeptics regarding the Paris Agreement Roadmap to zero CO2 emissions by 2050.If you need to get up to speed regardingthe Paris Agreement Roadmap,please review my last two postings.

Let’s begin with Judith Curry’s thoughts on this topic from her posting of 25 March titled “A roadmap for meeting Paris emissions reductions goals”.

JC reflections

Apart from the issues raised in this paper, there are several other elephants in this room: there is growing evidence of much smaller climate sensitivity to CO2; and even if these drastic emissions reductions occurred, we would see little impact on the climate in the 21st century (even if you believe the climate models).

I think that what this paper has done is important: laying out what it would actually take to make such drastic emissions reductions. Even if we solve the electric power problem, there is still the problem of transportation, not to mention land use. Even if all this was technically possible, the cost would almost certainly be infeasible.

As Oliver Geden states, its time to ask policy makers whether they are going to attempt do this or not. It seems rather futile to make token emissions reductions at substantial cost.

Deciding that all this is impractical or infeasible seems like a rational response to me. The feasible responses are going with nuclear power or undertaking a massive R&D effort to develop new emission free energy technologies. Independent of all this, we can reduce vulnerability from extreme weather events (whether or not they are exacerbated by AGW) and the slow creep of sea level rise.

Dr. Curry’s remarks are very succinct.To be a success, the roadmap requires many inventions that to date have been sought after but not delivered. And she points out, as noted in this blog on a number of occasions, the climate sensitivity used by the warmers gives temperature increases that are unsupportable.This roadmap is necessary in large part because it is predicated on those exaggerated temperatures the climate models produce.That is Dr. Curry’s “elephants in the room.”

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,” Obama said during a 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board. Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton also pledged that “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.”

“This Labor Day, America has 83,000 fewer coal jobs and 400 coal mines than it did when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, showing that the president has followed through on his pledge to “bankrupt” the coal industry.”

The paragraphs above are from the dailycaller 5 September 2016 posting “Obama kept his promise-83,000 coal jobs lost and 400 mines shuttered.

Who are the cheerleaders wanting the coal business to fail? The EPA !!Who authored the Clean Power ACT?The EPA!!

The author lays out his complaints about the way the warmers treat the data and as well as how they have treated him.He believes the catastrophic man-made global warming theory is unraveling and the skeptics will be vindicated. So what do you think about the following?

It’s been a rough ten years as a so-called “climate denier”. Every year the climate data would show a complete refusal to follow the accepted and official line, and every year the faith of the climate change faithful only seemed to get stronger and stronger. And theirabuse of heretics like myself only got stronger and stronger. I have lost friendships over my stance on this issue. I have been attacked publicly by those around me on numerous occasions. And I have endured the casual mockery at social gatherings where theaccepted response has been to pat me on the head in a condescending manner – here he is; our own climate denier. Isn’t he precious?

I have watched landscapes I love destroyed by the looming figures of gigantic wind farms thatstand in mute mockery of my continued resistance to this enormous scam. I have observed with silent loathing the hypocrites who swan around in their enormous SUVs while proudly parading their dubious greencredentials, even as ordinary families struggle with the reality of paying their ever-increasing power bills. Only a few months ago, a piece I wrote on the climate change scam elicited concerned emails and calls from people I know who cautioned me with the treacherous path Iwas taking.

But money talks and bulls— walks, and the money is beginning to drop out of this con to end all cons.